LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued (Nanny of the Month, Oct. '12)


LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued (Nanny of the Month, Oct. '12)

Washington DC might pull a Bloomberg (as in soda ban) and Florida officials have put the kibosh on the latest in kiddie shindigs (alligator pool parties). But top dishonors come from the City of Angels.

The once mighty city now teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. It suffers from double-digit unemployment, awful schools, ridiculously bad traffic, and ambulances that have a deadly, decades-long habit of showing up late. Yet city officials never fail to find new ways to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The latest example: banning pet stores from selling cats, dogs or rabbits that come from breeders. We all want more pets to be adopted, but c'mon LA.

This month we highlight the councilman who spearheaded the effort that will almost certainly make Los Angeles the largest US city to command its pet store owners to sell only rescue animals.

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month: Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz!

About 80 seconds.

"Nanny of the Month" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Opening animation by Meredith Bragg.

Go here to watch previous Nanny of the Month episodes.

NEXT: 3 Reasons U.S. Drone Policy is Really Freakin' Scary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing improves the economy like banning economic activity.

    1. It's true. Banning slavery brought on the Panic of 1873.

  2. But, officer, I found this guppy in a puddle!

  3. A large percentage of "rescued" animals are stolen.

      1. Well, if you go in and take something away from the owner because you disagree with how it's being used, that's stealing.

    1. This is not true. However... There is a clear incentive with this new law for unscrupulous "rescuers" to steal good animals to put up for sale at pet stores. The pet stores are not going to try to sell unplaceable dogs. They are going to be picky. Unscrupulous suppliers can take advantage of that pickiness and no competition from supplies of non-rescued animals from breeders where the incidence of stolen pets is basically non-existent by definition.

      1. We can create a bureacracy to solve that problem for you. First we will start by requiring all pets to have a chip in them then etc....

  4. The New LA Pet Store Business Plan

    Step 1. Purchase animals

    Step 2. Abandon animals

    Step 3. Adopt animals

    Step 4. Profit!

  5. But grocery stores and restaurants can?

    1. "This steak comes from 100% grass fed, non-genetically altered, rescued cows."

  6. Ted, great video as usual. Time to coin a term for city councils making uproariously stupid laws: Koretz Syndrome.


  7. Hopefully, Ceiling Cat will smite these bastards.

  8. Easy work around:

    All pet shops open adjacent "ethnic food markets," then purchase animals as "rescues" from becoming Bachelor Chow.

  9. This can't possibly be worked around. Hey, Mr. Pet Store owner, I found these suspiciously pure-bred looking dogs in the vacant lot down the street from you. How much will you give me for them? They're 'rescues'!

    Speaking as somebody who does dog rescue, there's already enough asshattery and stupidity involved in rescue. I'd like to thank the good stewards of LA for adding more.

    1. I completely agree about the asshattery. I am very happy to work with a local rescue to place goofy dogs with cool people. But the complete misunderstanding of the supply and demand aspects of the business, and the insufferable moralizing drive me nuts.

      Like a dog that someone buys from a pet store is the equivalent of a fur coat compared to a dog who is "rescued". Child, please. Both could be very well loved and wonderful animals. And both could be neglected and/or a pain the ass. Some people are naturals with animals. And some very well intentioned people probably shouldn't have them without supervision or assistance. Or at least a good alpha male adult person in the family unit.

      1. Word. People are fucking insane. All I'm trying to do is get a dog into a home where people will be nice to it and take care of it. Somehow, this means I need to be lectured about everything related to animals under the sun. WTF did I do? If you ain't interested in taking the dog, take your sanctimony and fuck along. But leave your money, as we always need donations.

        1. Why would anyone make donations to an asshole? Curb your attitude.

    2. I think the best work around is, if you want to buy a non-rescue pet, buy outside the city.

      When government intervention only results in a somewhat less rational and efficient allocation of resources, I consider myself lucky (especially in California).

  10. Given the number of times that 'Animal Rights' groups have been caught doing things that endanger or outright harm animals (usually as part of some stupid publicity stunt), why does anybody even listen to them anymore?

    1. Feelings matter, facts don't. Reactionary politics 101.

      1. But, but, but it's the righties who are the reactionaries!!!!


    2. PETA seizes animals. PETA does not operate even one shelter. PETA does operate numerous euthanasia facilities.

      PETA has claimed in the past that animals are better off dead than "enslaved".

      Connect the dots.

  11. I could imagine a updated moment from a memorable "Kentucky Fried movie":
    "-Dr, Klahn (to the pet store owner): Take him to... Los Angeles!
    -Pet owner owner: No, not Los Angeles! No please no! It's worse than Detroit! No!"

  12. why don't they also require everyone to no longer have children and instead must adopt orphans

    1. I could see that happen. The fact that some couples can have children and others can't is unfair. The class difference is also unfair. Poor kids should go to new rich parents whose rich kids should go to new poor parents to level the playing field. Fat kids should also go to poor parents who can help them lose weight.
      Conservative kids will go to liberal parents and conservative parents will get the juvenile delinquent kids, although the conservative parents will be fined if they try to oppress the delinquent kids and don't tolerate their unique lifestyle choices.

      1. Why limit it to children?

        Some people are good at sports. Most aren't. Some people are good at being politicians. Most aren't.

        If we're going to promote equality, we need to start at the top.

  13. Story about attendance may cause curiosity. But he is the most important issue, or that mouth filled coffin fox. In any event, the facts can not be implemented in the case, he must find a way to get rid of that coffin. But for some reason, it is difficult to think of a way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.